SRI. GOWDRA BASAPPA MAHALINGAPPA,CHITRADURGA vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, CHITRADURGA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 776/BANG/2023Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 November 2023AY 2017-182 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee had sought an adjournment for the last hearing. Therefore, one more opportunity was granted to the assessee, and the matter was restored to the AO.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal against the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order for AY 2017-18 was heard. The CIT(A) had passed the order as the assessee did not respond to two notices of hearing.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without considering the assessee's adjournment request. The need to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC - C” BENCH : BANGALORE

Before: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K

For Appellant: Shri. Sandeep Chalapathy, CA
For Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate, Standing Counsel for Revenue
Hearing: 23.11.2023Pronounced: 23.11.2023

This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against CIT(A)’s order dated 26.09.2023, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year is 2017-18.

2.

At the very outset, I notice that CIT(A) has passed an ex-parte order since according to him two notices of hearing issued were not responded to by the assessee.

3.

The learned AR submitted before the Tribunal that assessee had sought for adjournment and impugned order was passed on 26.09.2023. The assessee has placed on record screen shot of the adjournment application filed online.

4.

The learned Standing Counsel was duly heard.

5.

I have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. Two notices of hearing were issued from the Office of the CIT(A). However, to the last notice issued fixing the case for hearing on 25.09.2023, assessee had sought for adjournment. Assessee has produced a screen shot of the adjournment application uploaded online. Therefore, I am of the view that one more opportunity should be provided to the assessee. Since the assessment has been completed under section 144 of the Act, I deem it appropriate to restore the matter to the files of the AO. The assessee shall furnish necessary evidence in support of his case. The AO is directed to furnish reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee before a decision is taken in the matter. It is ordered accordingly.

6.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →